Universal benefits and inequality

Ed Balls arrives at the Thomson Reuters headquarters in London on 3 June to deliver a speech in which he said a future Labour government would means-test winter fuel payments. Photo: Luke MacGregor/Reuters
Luke Macgregor/REUTERS

What is Ed Miliband thinking? Yesterday his shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, said a future Labour government would means-test winter fuel payments (Report, 3 June 2013). Obviously this is the thin end of the wedge. When the Tories extend means-testing to healthcare, which they would clearly like to do, their rightwing supporters will coolly bat away criticism by citing Labour's precedent.

Seventy years ago the architects of the welfare state recognised from the experience of the interwar years that social provision only for the poor became poor social provision, and that a universal system would be sustainable only if all contributors shared in the benefits. Does Mr Miliband somehow imagine that these principles no longer hold, when our government again promotes the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor, embraces interwar monetary and fiscal policy, and sustains levels of inequality not seen since that period?Robert BoyceLondon

• The communal claims for the advantages of universal benefits have long been outweighed by the disadvantages to those beneficiary groups living on low incomes – especially poor families and pensioners living in poverty. Indeed, it could be argued that universalism has done little to further income equality.

The question for Mr Balls is: where is Labour's commitment to a far more progressive system of taxation to prevent the predicted rise in income inequality between 2011-12 and 2015-16 and beyond?Professor Mike SteinSocial Policy Research Unit, University of York

• I am sorry to see the Guardian joining Ed Balls's attack on universal age-related benefits, especially as the cost of the winter fuel allowance amounts only to small change in the total of government expenditure. Young people started by getting landed with university tuition fees of about a thousand pounds. In a decade and a half the figure has multiplied by nine. Removal of age-related benefits may begin with people paying higher-rate tax. How long before it excludes anyone on more than basic state pension?Alan HarrisonWalsall

• Polly Toynbee's call for Ed Miliband to show some "vision" is likely to be met, but restricting it to policies for redressing the damage inflicted by this government on welfare, the NHS and the economy will not be enough to arouse much enthusiasm for Labour among a public that sees little difference between the parties.

Many people are angry that the privatisation of our service industries has resulted in poor service, high prices and loss of control. Now the coalition want to privatise our Royal Mail, which will have similar consequences.

A statement by Ed Miliband that, if this goes ahead, a Labour government would take Royal Mail back into public ownership, with compensation of no more that the original investment being paid over a period of say 10 years. Together with a commitment to place other privatised industries under close scrutiny, this would liven up election prospects and help to revitalise the party.Bill BanningBirmingham

• Taxing benefits like winter fuel allowance would be a better way to address unfairness while maintaining universality. But Labour needs to fry some bigger fish. How about the £40bn a year spent on pension tax relief that mainly goes to the better off?Stephen BurkeDirector, United for All Ages

• If the £200 per annum now paid as winter fuel allowance were simply added to the state pension, it would not be paid to any men under 65 (at present all people over the women's retirement age can claim it) and would be taxed.John IllingworthBradford, West Yorkshire